Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
I didnt forget any of this.
In terms of abilities, I simply took the abilities that we have and used the same ratio, but with the number of abilities we can expect to see in the live game.
Yes, it is an assumption, but it is an assumption with foundation.
As to where players put their points, if the mechanics of the game make it so that having both a damage component and a CC component on a single ability .means that the CC will work on greens, players will place a much higher value on getting a number of such abilities. This is especially true of people that want to go out hunting greens - their build will likely be based around doing exactly that.
Which again is my point. In a game with fairly rigid class kits, you can limit these things fairly easily. In a game with Intrepids class kit system, there isnt really a viable way to limit it without basically ruining the point of the augment system. I mean, saying you are giving players options and then not really giving them options does seem a little pointless.
Keep in mind, all of this is simply avoided by doing something that Ashes can easily do, but L2 didnt because it couldn't. It was literally a technical limitation that forced L2 to have it the way they had it, and I have no doubt that technical limitation then informed decisions about class kits.
Ashes doesnt have that limitation, and so shouldnt self impose it.
That became clear to me back then. When they announced the change to the ocean, I had no doubt in my mind that soon they'd also announce other similar zones (which they kind of did with Node Ruins which I personally think it's fine) and also that they'd soon announce highsec zones, which hasn't happened yet and I hope I'm wrong and it never happens. However, I have a feeling that the corruption system will be just a minor detail, the owPvP will be more along the lines of nullsec/lowsec/highsec zones from EVE or Albion. Which is worse than what we originally had in my opinion.
Futhermore, nothing about the green/purple/red system seems to promote open world pvp. It just gives the facade of OWPvP while catering to carebears. If the intent is for people to compete for resources/camps, it will fail horribly as its just going to be baiting the other group to get flagged first so you can attack them with impunity. My 2cp.
But... the greens attacking you IS the repercussion... for you going red in the first place.
There can't be 'repercussions' for 'repercussions', that doesn't even make sense.
I can't say that it's clear to me yet. But I can sense it. We'll see I reckon.
Well, they're probably testing SOMETHING.
I like to imagine that there's a QA person whose entire job is to go around on the server griefing the other QA people and being hunted down by the QA Bounty Hunters.
Well I just realized a dream job I never knew I had.
I actually kind of agree with this.
Right but isn't the entire POINT that green should be protected from CC griefing by anyone?
Not every green would even think to ATTACK a nearby Red player, so it seems more reasonable to use the 'blanket' response L2 used (for CC only abilities anyway).
And at that point you might as well extend it to Damage+CC abilities given the precise goal of it. Being able to CC greens because you are Red seems to go against the entire concept that 'not being able to CC greens' would be based on. It's just 'a form of dampening that kicks in immediately'.
Granted, only one person in this thread so far seems to be against the 'Damage' part working on them if it has both abilities, so at least they can plan around it.
This is one of the reasons why I think that PKers would be punished quite quickly even if the corruption timer was short. All it takes is a chat shout from the victim and at least a few willing and capable greens in the vicinity of the murder location to go and kill the Red while he's still red.
Now I don't have that big of an opinion on CCs vs greens either way cause I'd really have to see how the overall pvp balance is designed first, but if all CCs don't work - PKers will be dying even more than they would've already.
@NiKr pretty much said everything I was going to say. Corruption penalties as they are listed on the wiki are already massive, no need to increase that hinderance to a level of impossible. Its meant to prevent rampant griefing, not remove ganking altogether. Completely removing CC from ganking encounters is a terrible game design altogether in my opinion. If its absolutely needed, maybe give an item option for gatherers to remove CC but have it with a cooldown. But it all needs testing regardless.
The point of cc grief is so they flag and go purple so they have to pvp you and you can avoid going red and dealing with the punishment. Greens do not flag when they attack and by killing a corrupted or dying it one it does not change their status they simply get the kill or die to them.
Long story short greens do not go purple attacking a red so that issue does not exist in griefing them to purple.
Though on a more serious note this makes skill matter all the more in the game being able to dodge, counter block, etc so you can survive.
You didn't understand what I was trying to say.
Yes, being red has repercussions. I obviously pointed that out. They shouldn't have the additional repercussion of no CC against greens, since a green attacking you doesn't turn purple.
It's the green attacking a red that has limited to no repercussions. They either die and the Red goes even deeper into corruption since green attacking red stays green, or they win with the odds heavily stacked in their favor since they can't be CC'd. Even if your red, you should still be able to use your full kit to defend yourself.
You also ignored my second, larger point. The whole system will fail because the idea of pvp for contesting spots is just going to be groups baiting the other to go red so the odds become heavily stacked in one groups favor.
Again I haven't played, only from what I read, but the system seems greatly flawed.
But it can only be flawed dependent on the goal.
If the goal is 'nearly anyone ever goes Red because it's so dangerous', then all these things make sense, right?
In what way is it a failure in that case?
People in PvE-only games find ways to compete for resources and camps all the time, so I would assume the idea is that we would do it that way first, and then go Red if there was either no other option or the targets were known and no one would punish us for doing so.
I'd absolutely expect that in most cases where someone goes Red in Ashes, their Node Mates are going to just go 'yeah that was justified, go grind off your Corruption, good job'.
The Corruption is therefore just an option for whoever they killed to take revenge. You probably don't need to worry about CCs for that (if I heal my Red player and you want to stop ME from doing that, you have to flag and can be CCed by said Red player, for example).
And you have yourself party pvp. So it's more logical to just fight back and be at full strength.
Is that the stated goal? I read that the goal of the green/purple/red system was to promote healthy OWpvp. IMO, its going to fail horribly if going red is as bad as it seems to be. No one will risk it, therefore there won't be a lot of pvp. There are far more people who will run from fights than fight back in my experience playing games, especially if they can troll you while doing it.
I'm not a rampant PK'er in games, but I am an opportunist. If the penalties are so harsh that people aren't even willing to risk it, why have pvp at all?
And my point remains, the red should still have their full kit to defend themselves if they are already taking the inherently large risk of going red.
There's no way to give a specific perfect description of just how much the game is supposed to deter going Red.
But as of TODAY'S Dev Stream, I'm much more inclined toward believing that VERY few people will go Red in this game, and I also believe that this doesn't really reduce owPvP.
In fact, I am constantly 'surprised' by the number of people who think that owPvP has much to do with going Red at all. Red is just 'a last resort for when your opponent refuses to take your challenge seriously', in my mind.
I am ENTIRELY willing to go Red to achieve a goal, but I HOPE for a game where my opponent, realizing that PvP is a valid way to solve their problem, decides 'Let's just fight and the winner takes the Thing'. The 'willingness to go Red' is not for 'standard situations' for most people, I think.
The game doesn't want you to go Red, it wants you to have the option of solving your problems through violence if all else fails and you feel you can get away with it. And if no one blames you for going Red against X target, your chances of getting away with it are way higher.
But at the same time, you have taken a risk. You CAN still suffer for doing it.
OWPVP can still happen even if PKing is super harsh.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how can you protect the PKer without also attacking? That would flag you purple, and if they never targeted the purples, then the purples run the risk of going red as well. And assuming groups, it's going to be pretty hard for a single person to burst someone in a group that presumably has a healer as well. Again, no experience, just speculating from what I've read.
I'd rather see something like the UO system of old, that would make a lot more sense without the shenanigans regarding flagging.
But unless the victim party manages to outdmg all that protection - they'd need to flag up against the helpers to beat the PKer.
And when it comes to the initial kill, all it takes is some general knowledge of the target's archetype and gear (and potential buffs). With that knowledge you just have a few dpsers shoot off one ability to bring the victim healer down and then the designated PKer does his biggest attack to burst over any potential incoming heal.
Now I'm fairly sure this will be a rare occurrence cause I see no real reason for the victim party to just let one of their members die, but it can happen and I've seen it happen, though L2's ttk was quite shorter so we'll have to see how much AoC's class balancing helps the victim or boosts the attacker.
So only the KB gets red status? Even if the whole group attacked? And I don't think one healer should be able to prevent a whole group from killing a single person on even gear/skill levels so I'm not sure your analogy is fair. What are the other members of the attacking party doing at that point? They either flag and run the risk of going red as well, or they stand by. PVP is often a numbers game, and I see a lot of potential for the current system to be gamed.
That just seems dumb to me. And even so, it still doesn't change the fact that I think Red not being able to CC back is a foolish idea. Even for what appears to be the intended effect, to prevent ganking, with how debilitating being Red appears to be, your not going to be able to grief someone for very long if that's your goal. It seems like a system to placate to carebears that can't stand that they got killed in a PvX game trying to play it like it was single-player mmo #2342, as if actual good pvper's go around ganking lowbies or something (they don't in my experience, they want actual pvp).
Again, I just don't think the flagging system is going to work well. You should only go red after accruing a certain amount of corruption, not from one kill, and you certainly should be able to defend yourself if you do so. I think it will be a bigger issue than you obviously, but that's fine, this is an alpha forums for feedback.
Ashes has plenty of PvP that does not cause the killers to become Corrupted.
But... the stated goal is to deter PKing; not completely prevent PKing.
Supposedly, Ashes' Corruption is close enough to Lineage 2's Karma that it should work as well as Steven hopes.
No, I mean what I wrote. I was under the impression that the flagging system is what it is to promote PvP. PKing is PVP, whether you want it or not. PK means player kill. How can you PVP without PK? I shall duel you for those herbs! (that I don't want). I know from my short time of this forum that your exactly the type of person that I'm referencing. God forbid you'd get killed minding your own business in a PvX game. To use an AA example, it would be like someone trying to run a full ship of tradepacks to Pirate Island solo, then complaining they died and someone stole their stuff. Maybe you should like idk, get some friends to help you? It is an MMO after all...
I've been jumped plenty of times in games and turned the tables. It feels great. Nothing about this system promotes that. It is over the top punishing to the person starting the combat, then piles on even more. Its a bad system. And again, my over arching complaint is the inability of a red to defend themselves. I don't plan on ganking lowbies for their flowers, but if I did, I should be able to defend myself given all the other negatives associated with going red.
1. its becoming going red just means death if a player sees you.
2. Players won't enjoy losing xp to players in any form and feels too punishing for a death
You do this all the time, and I don't mean what I'm about to say negatively in any way but...
Shouldn't you focus on what the game's intention is?
Sure, we all fall short on that sometimes, we talk about the game we want instead of what the game is, but the tendency to go 'I think it will change because I wouldn't like it to be this way' isn't productive because the forums just turns into a loop of everyone saying that.
So, for the sake of just this topic, could you specify something beyond 'yeah I don't think it will be this way, no one would like it'? Even if only to prevent the topic from devolving into 'a bunch of people saying the reverse, to you'?
We have gone over this, the intention is to stop griefing of greens as purple to make them change purple through Cc's and constant harassment.
1. You stay as green when fighting a red.
2. They go further into corruption if killing you
Meaning you can freely attack them and they have no reason to cc you and try to stop you from farming or getting you killed to mobs when you can just go after them and kill them.
I've already gone into detail on this. Arguments this player is red so they should have 0 chance to escape or run from a green until they die starts to become akin to worddog's post saying there should be a item that drops and automatically kills a corrupted.
Their intention is to stop griefing and make corrupting so unrealistic that it is never ever used. They will dial it in either direction based on what happens, which also means giving corrupted players a chance to survive.
Effectively without any usual cc/effects only certain classes / builds can be corrupted and others will be at a further extreme disadvantage. ie if someone looks at their kit and says it's impossible for me to survive being corrupted they will not use the system further making the amount of players even more tiny.
Eh, I had to try at least.
So it goes.